>> jackie, charlie, shan, thanks to all of you. >> we appreciate it. thank you for joining us. see you back here tomorrow morning. i'm poppy harlow. >> i'm jim sciutto. stay tuned here. special coverage of the impeachment trial of president trump begins right now. i'm wolf blitzer live in washington alongside jake tapper, anderson cooper and dana bash on capitol hill. this is cnn's special coverage of the impeachment trial of president donald j. trump. today, the president's defense team wraps up their presentation. they spent some time defending the actions of president trump's personal attorney, rudy giuliani. >> but the crux of the argument seemed to focus on impeachment itself, and the criteria set out

in the u.s. constitution. treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeaners. the trump team argued the president's actions in this case simply does not meet that standard and took on for the very first time on the senate floor claims made in a draft manuscript of former national security adviser john bolton's book as reported by the new york times and the washington post. >> nothing in the bolton revelations even if true would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense. that is clear from the history, that is clear from the language of the constitution. you cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct, simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit. if these impeachment articles now are sustained beyond summary

resolution in favor of acquittal, impeachment in the future literally will mean not only the proof of high crimes as no longer necessary to sustain the effort, but that no crime at all is sufficient so long as a partisan majority in the house says so. >> before the senate gets to vote on removal, the senators must first decide whether to hear from witnesses, like john bolton. that leads us to these four senators, mitt romney, susan collins, they seem to want witnesses, lamar alexander and lisa murkowski expressed an openness to the idea. dana bash is leading our coverage on capitol hill. senator romney just said something rather interesting, about witnesses, speaking to manu raju. >> reporter: that's right. he said to, again, as you said to manu raju on the question of witnesses, what he leaned into is the notion of one for one, meaning if the democrats get john bolton as a witness, then republicans should be able to get their pick of a witness.

and specifically what romney said to manu is i think that is a measure that has fairness associated with it, but then on the question of whether or not the republicans would be able to call hunter biden, top of the list for them, romney said i wouldn't tell either side who they ought to call. so the reason why this is important is because as night fell yesterday, and as we even have spoken to sources this morning, it is so clear how much the conversation has changed because of the bolton manuscript, because of the revelations in it. and the conversation being, of course, about witnesses. it has moved from are we going to have witnesses to, well, if we have witnesses, how are we going to go about that and what witnesses would we have in addition to bolton. that is not to say, i want to be clear, that is not to say the votes are there. that those four republican votes needed are there, explicitly for bolton, but even the president's

most ardent supporters up here were telling me with a shoulder shrug and a sigh that the conversation changed and there is -- it is more likely than not that that could happen. but they're also saying that they're watching what we're going to hear on the floor this morning, the president's lawyers giving their final presentation, making the argument not just against conviction, but we also expect likely against witnesses. they're hoping republicans can use that presentation for cover if they are looking for that cover. >> what are we expecting from the president's attorneys on the floor of the senate today. is it just a conclusion, will they talk more about the bidens, what do we think? >> my understanding is all of the above. i can tell you that it wasn't until very late last night that the decision appears to have been made by the president's legal team, that they would wrap up rather quickly this morning and do it -- at least they're telling us in a couple of hours.

and that would be the end of the -- of the arguments we hear from his team. we do expect as i said them to talk broadly about in the convicting this president on either account of impeachment, but also to specifically use the time to beat back the notion of needing to hear from any more witnesses or any witnesses at all since there haven't been any witnesses to date. >> any new ones. right, dana bash, thank you so much. joining us now, democratic senator mazie hirono of hawaii. thank you for joining us. i want to get your reaction to what senator romney just said, that it would be in the neighborhood of fairness if there are witnesses for republicans to get to pick a witness and democrats to get a pick to pick a witness. what do you think about the idea? the democrats don't control the senate. it might be the best you can do. >> this is a trial, we expect relevant witnesses, this is why i would be perfectly happy with having the chief justice make a

decision on relevancy and what the republicans can do is to argue they want hunter biden, we'll argue he's not relevant to the proceedings and then they can vote is down and have hunter biden. so, yesterday, they -- the trump team tripled down on the argument that there is absolutely no evidence connecting the hold to any investigations. well, yes, we have a lot of evidence, not to mention bolton who is ready and willing to testify. as a side track, they took us down the rabbit hold regarding hunter biden with giuliani running around like a mad hatter, eccentric uncle. they argued there is no evidence where there is evidence connecting up this hold to the investigation and the second thing is i think they are arguing alternatively with dershowitz that even if the president did it, so what? this is what i call the so what

defense. i've been saying that the republicans are probably going to come down we did it, so what, this is a big deal. it is not so what that we have a president who thinks that he can do anything he wants in the article two of the constitution. >> so, senator, i understand your argument that hunter biden and joe biden don't know anything about the allegations being made about the president most germane to the impeachment trial. what about the whistle-blower, if there is a way for the intelligence community whistle-blower to testify in a way that preserves his or her anonymity. how could democrats argue about the whistle-blower -- against the whistle-blower as a witness given that it was his or her complaint that set this all in motion. >> subsequent to the whistle-blower's complaint, there have been so much evidence as to what was going on and what the president's intentions were with this entire scheme. we do not need the whistle-blower. much of what his complaint rely on the testimony that have

already been presented by others who came forward to testify. so we do not need the whistle-blower. the president keeps wanting to out the whistle-blower. this is what he does. he doesn't like the fact that somebody actually dared to raise questions about his behavior and now he wants to get this person, even if his testimony, his or her testimony is totally not necessary for the proceedings. >> as you know, senator, this is wolf, the president's defense team spoke a lot about hunter biden and joe biden, they spoke about are barack obama and then last night we heard this from your republican colleague, senator joanie ernst, listen to this. >> iowa caucuses are this next monday evening. and i'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the iowa caucus voters, the democratic caucus goers. will they be supporting vice

president biden at this point? >> senator what does that tell you? >> she's putting a political spin on this whole thing, in spite of the fact that what the arguments raised yesterday -- the fact was he was re mopromot united states policy in wanting this corrupt prosecute are to be gone with our european allies, by the way. they raise innuendos. that's what i mean about going down the rabbit hole relating to the bidens. they want us to continue to not look at the truth and i'm glad there are some republican senators such as mitt romney who may be are open to hearing the truth, even if it hurts. >> senator you say you don't appreciate what the republican legal defense team for the president is doing, what you describe as the so what defense. remember, i covered it 21 years ago during the bill clinton impeachment trial, his supporters were saying, yes, the

then president of united states, he lied under oath about a sexual relationship with a white house intern, but so what? that was the argument, that doesn't necessarily rise to the level of impeaching a sitting president of the united states. what do you say to that argument? >> the thing about impeachment trial is that the trial is very much based on the facts, and the facts have -- whether he had this kind of an affair, which nobody likes, of course, but in this trial, the facts are the president used his awesome powers to shake down the president of a foreign country to do his political dirty work, using taxpayer money as a bribe. i don't see all those factors involved in the clinton impeachment trial. this is why facts matter in a trial. this is why witnesses who have facts to bring to bear, relevant facts, matters. this is why the republicans are so intent on wanting to push this forward so we don't see the facts in this trial. and, you know what, john bolton

is right there, the 200 pound elephant in the room now. but there were so many other people, 17 other witnesses, who testified to various aspects of this entire scheme that was wrong by the president with rudy giuliani not as a mad hatter, but a guy running around on behalf of the president to make this all happen. >> senator hirono, thank you for joining us. >> you're welcome. all right, despite the president's personal lawyer being at the center of the ukraine pressure campaign, the impeachment defense team reduced rudy giuliani to what they described as a minor player and shiny object. plus, conservatives now attacking john bolton, calling him, believe it or not, a tool of the left. this is cnn special coverage of the impeachment trial of president donald lj. trump.

when did you see the sign? when i needed to create a better visitor experience. improve our workflow. attract new customers. that's when fastsigns recommended fleet graphics yeah, and now business is rolling in. get started at fastsigns.com i am not for ignorings the first sign of a cold. i am for shortening my cold, with zicam! zicam is completely different. unlike most other cold medicines, zicam is clinically proven to shorten colds. i am a zifan for zicam! oral or nasal.

♪[ siren ] & doug give me your hand! i can save you... lots of money with liberty mutual! we customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ heartburn and gas? ♪ fight both fast tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪ ♪ tum tum tum tums tums chewy bites with gas relief

and this is cc+ cream. it gives you your skin but better. it's your full coverage foundation, spf 50 plus anti aging serum. discover the #1 cc cream in america.

a shiny object, minor player, it appears the defense team landed o on its strategy t explain away rudy giuliani. take a look. >> rudy ugiuliani is the colorfl distraction. but i say he's front and center in their narrative and one reason alone. to distract from the fact that the evidence does not support their claims. but in this trial, in this moment, mr. giuliani is just a minor player, that shiny object designed to distract you.

>> rudy giuliani is just a minor player, the so-called minor player at the center of the scandal that fueled the president's impeachment, mentioned on the infamous july phone call when trump asked zelensky to dig up dirt on the bidens. while openly conducting a shadow campaign on ukraine ahead of the election. the idea that rudy giuliani is just a shiny -- i deon't know what that means, he's a shiny of course jeobject, i think the she went off of him a while ago. but it makes no sense. >> it is an, argument to try to get rid of his central role. he's not only listed on the phone call, it is impossible to imagine the story without giuliani initiating it. if he is not agitating with his

allies, like lev parnas, to get the ukrainian government to dig up dirt on joe biden, it doesn't happen. he initiated the whole thing. >> also, what the president was saying to zelensky was not talk to the ambassador, talk to the people of the u.s. embassy, it is talk to rudy. >> it was like he's saying this is my right-hand man. if you want anything done, here is my contact. you have to be agreeable with him, or not happens. the whole idea of making him a minor player, they're trying to confine their entire case to this is all about the july 25th phone call, as opposed to the pressure campaign giuliani was about. he was not just about the july 25th phone call, before then, what happened afterward. if they say minor player, they are making you say look at that

one transcript, do us a favor, if you will, that's all they want to go on, not factually correct. >> jane rask erasken is a terri lawyer. i have no idea how she drew the short straw to make that argument. fundamentally rudy is the biggest problem with the defense here. unquestionably nobody is disputing he was working on behalf of the president personally. personally. there is no dispute about that. and i think that's trump's biggest issue is trying to explain why this personal lawyer and, you know, i'll assume that he's acting as a lawyer and not as a political operative, which is how it seems to me, what is his personal lawyer/political operative doing dealing with u.s. government officials, dealing with ukrainian government officials, what is he doing here at all in. >> ken starr also was part of the president's defense team. i want to play some of what he

said yesterday. >> impeachment has now been normalized. it won't be a once in a generation act, but an every administration act. democrats will regret it when republicans are handing out the pens. >> whether the president's actions are in fact grounds for an impeachment or some other sanction is a decision in the sole discretion of the congress. >> ken starr now and ken starr back then. i know you -- >> you know, i -- ken starr, it was sort of fun to see him again, i guess, because i'm, you know, i followed his career for so long. had he was solicitor general, he was nicknamed the solicitous general because he has this sort of ingratiating very kind of courteous way of speaking. but out of all of the people in the united states to say that we're using impeachment too

often, the architect of the last failed impeachment seems like an inappropriate choice. but i don't think it is going to swing votes one way or another, but there seems to be a certain tone deafness in picking him of all people. >> there is one youthful parallel, to think of this -- to say that rudy giuliani is irrelevant to the impeachment crisis is like saying monica lewinsky is irrelevant to clinton's impeachment crisis. having ken starr come back was a remarkably funny and weird, bizarre and totally trumpian approach to defense. the president, i think, believed, as he often believes, if you make people who like bill clinton angry, you're somehow making his base happy. he brought ken starr in and ken starr was this player in a different movie. i watched it -- i couldn't -- as a historian, i was delighted to

see ken starr because he thoroughly showed himself to be a hypocrite, a complete hypocrite. if you look at how he turned the whitewater investigation desperately looking for a reason to get rid of bill and hillary clinton, finally he gets a reason because the president is a totally flawed man. and uses that to make grand arguments about the threat to the constitution posed by president clinton's misconduct regarding an intern in the white house and to have him say this president, who corrupted u.s. foreign policy for his own personal benefit has not somehow reached the threshold of a threat to the u.s. constitution, that bill clinton did, you have to wonder does this man actually look himself in the mirror in the morning? >> sincie inthe damning revelats from the book, there is an increasing interest to have him come and testify as a witness. a fox news contribute, now being

attacked as a tool of the left by some. plus a new revelation from the book that bolton feared what the president was giving to dictators. much you clean, does your house still smell stuffy? that's because your home is filled with soft surfaces that trap odors and release them back into the room. so try febreze fabric refresher. febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up, to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean. fabric refresher even works for clothes you want to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine for full home freshness. la la la la la

robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood.

you will see at vgreat and look great.ee "guaranteed" we say that too! you've gotta use these because we don't mean it. buy any pair at regular price, get one free. really! visionworks. see the difference.

♪ g♪ i want to go, go,es go where my baby is ♪ hey. hey. you must be steven's phone. now you can take control of your home wifi and get a notification the instant

someone new joins your network. only with xfinity xfi. downlaod the xfi app today. john bolton was one of the most conservative members of the

trump administration. he was seen as a hawk who leaned toward tougher action on iran, fought for hard-line of venezuela and north korea and those differences among others forced his exit from the white house. as president trump's former national security adviser unleashes his damning claims against the president, conservatives are doing an about face and going on the attack as they try to discredit him. >> sara murray is here to help break this down and explain it to everybody. the criticism seems to fall into two basic camps, one, bolton has this ulterior motive to sell books and the other calls his character into question. >> reporter: it is safe to say his stock has fallen with the republican party. here is a lack ook at some of t attacks. senator josh hawley called him not a firsthand witness, which is confusing because he is a firsthand witness. senator john barrasso had to say there is nothing new here, he's just trying to sell books.

rush limbaugh, of course, weighed in, calling bolton disloyal. the trump white house has called him a liar. lou dobbs called him a rhino, republican in name only, and a tool for radical democrats, which i don't think anyone had that on their bingo card for how john bolton would come up in the proceedings. but you never know. moving on to rudy giuliani, he weighed in saying bolton wasn't man enough and senator pat roberts sounds this out saying bolton was reading "gone with the wind." a lot of republicans changing their tone when it comes to john bolton trying to discredit him. and by default, the manuscript he's written. >> very interesting. thank you very much. i know john bolton for a long time, he's a neoconservative, very much of a hawk, very conservative, real republican, so many areas. but look at the criticism he's now getting. >> right. because his testimony and his book would be damaging to the president of the united states.

and so you have to discredit him. that's the way it works on fox news, that's the way it worked last night, the guy is a traitor, suddenly he's a prisoner of the last wing, whatever you want to call it. and the assumption is -- i don't think it is necessarily true, that bolton leaked this manuscript, he did what he was supposed to do, which was he handed it for review on december 30th, somebody else did, sure it will help his book sales, et cetera. i believe they shouldn't even write the book, because, of course, that would mean he's a traitor to the president, when in fact, john bolton probably knowing john bolton as you do, probably sees this as the right thing to do for his country. now he's perceived as being on the wrong side. and the fact that he even said he would testify, if there were a subpoena, is also considered an act of treason by some. i think that's absolutely ridiculous. >> by the same token, we're seeing liberals and progressives embrace john bolton in a way

that is rather shocking. >> george w. bush had to appoint john bolton u.n. ambassador through a recess appointment because john bolton could not get the votes of democrats in the united states senate. so i think democrats should have some trepidation that john bolton is on some white horse coming to ride to the democratic party's rescue. however, what he says and what we have seen of this manuscript so far is incredibly damning. the question now is will the senate decide it has to bring him in and let john bolton answer the questions about his motivations. why are you doing this? are you doing this to sell books f you look at it now, first, yesterday's big story, the quid pro quo, and i think just as significantly if not more significantly the concerns by bolton and pompeo about rudy giuliani. >> according to bolton. >> according to the book, they both raised concerns that rudy giuliani was working in the interest of his clients and own financial interests and playing the president. that was their concern they raised. is that true? that's why you would have a witness. is impeachment the right place to have the witnesss? that's what the next few days will be about. now, today, the latest

installment that he went to bill barr, the attorney general, concerned the president was doing favors for other authoritarian leaders, that tracks with what we heard from the very earliest days of the trump presidency. trump, secretary tillerson, from former secretary mattis, from the anonymous essay and anonymous book, there are people, especially in the national security apparatus who view themselves as guardrails, running ahead of the president to push him back on the road. and so this has been the conversation, is he different and disruptive or as bolton alleges dangerous? that's the conversation that goes back to day one. >> i'm guessing that you like and respect john bolton, you see the world in foreign policy through different ways, what do you think is motivating him? what is your take on all this? >> the only thing i would question is the timing of submitting the book for review. you're doing it in a time when it is knowing the history of what goes on in this white house

that leaks are prevalent to submit this manuscript at this time, i think it was bad judgment. i have no problem with john bolton writing the book. i know john bolton well. he ran for president. people forget, this is someone who deeply believes in his world view and what is best for america and i think he felt compelled to write something about the state of foreign policy in america and where our country is going. i have no problem with any of that, no problem with him criticizing the president and no problem with him recounting conversations. i question the timing of doing this when you know that something like this could happen. and i think that was not -- >> maybe shouldn't have submitted it. >> should have waited, should have waited until this impeachment thing passed, then you can submit it and, you know, publish your -- >> publication data is in march. we'll see what the book actually claims. but as john points out, this -- what we heard does track with a lot of what we heard from other

players in the administration who were quote/unquote guardrails for the president, i'm sure he resented any notion anybody was there to control him and, you know, had concerns even though they too were conservative and believed in much of the president's world view, they had concerns about thins he w things he was doing. >> you get the clash between establishment republicans who nrbl ly initially were part of this administration and the trump style of republicans and saw this, i think, it played with jeff sessions. somebody who was a rocked ribbed republican, in many ways the architect of a lot of trump's ideas on immigration, tracked closely with trump's ideas and then he goes against trump, recuses himself in the mueller probe. you know, speaking out against this president, has not been a good career move for a lot of republicans. >> coming up, the president's

defense team turned the trial on to an attack on joe and hunter biden. >> new details on the investigation into kobe bryant's tragic death, including what happened in the final moments before the crash. lactaid is 100% real milk, just without the lactose. so you can enjoy it even if you're sensitive. yet some say it isn't real milk. i guess those cows must actually be big dogs. sit! i said sit! diarrhea? pepto diarrhea to the rescue. it's 3x concentrated liquid formula coats and kills bacteria to relieve diarrhea. the leading competitor only treats symptoms it does nothing to kill the bacteria. treat diarrhea at its source with pepto diarrhea.

♪ ♪

♪ applebee's new irresist-a-bowls starting at $7.99 for a limited time. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. asand achieved new york city'sed cacleanest air quality in more than 50 years. as a leader in the fight against climate change, he helped shut down over half of the nation's coal plants, then led one of the biggest pollution reduction efforts in history. as president, he intends to reduce emissions by fifty percent within ten years. because if we want to stop climate change, we need to make a change. this is a fight-we can't afford to lose. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message.

here hold this. follow that spud. [ tires screech ] the big idaho potato truck is touring america telling folks about idaho potatoes. and i want it back. what is it with you and that truck? ♪

new fixodent ultra dual power provides you with an unbeatable hold and strong seal against food infiltrations. fixodent. and forget it. hey allergy muddlers... achoo! ...do your sneezes turn heads? try zyrtec... ...it starts working hard at hour one... and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. zyrtec muddle no more. welcome back to our special coverage of the senate impeachment trial. want to highlight a moment from yesterday's argument, president trump's lawyer pam bondi payed a

video clip of joe biden from 2018, she left out some important facts. let's listen. >> years later now, former vice president biden publicly details what we know happened. his threat to withhold more than a billion dollars in loan guarantees unless shokin was fired. here's the vice president. >> i said i'm not getting -- we are not going to give you the billion dollars. they said you have no authority, you're not the president. the president said. i said, call him. i said, i'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars. i said, you're not getting a billion. i'll be leaving here, six hours, i said we're leaving in six hours. the prosecutor is not not getti. well, he got fired and they put in place someone who was solid. at the time. >> what he didn't say on that video, according to "the new york times ," this was the

prosecutor investigating burisma. shokin. >> cnn's daniel dale is here to help us fact check this moment. what did she leave out there? >> we have no good evidence this prosecutor, viktor shokin was investigating this company where hunter biden sat on the board at the time joe biden applied this pressure. shokin's former deputy said publicly that shokin had allowed this investigation to become dormant at the time. this was the perception of ukrainian anti-corruption activists. number two, shokin was widely seen as corrupt. this was the view of those activists in ukraine, this was the view of the u.s. diplomat i community, we heard testimony to that effect from george kent and marie yovanovitch and the view of u.s./european allies. . t the consensus was they would stand a greater chance of actually being investigated with another prosecutor, not shokin.

number three, related to number two, biden was acting in accordance with the official policy of the u.s. government. this wasn't biden running off to help his son in some way. this was biden executiing the government's position. we heard jeffrey piatt give a speech castigating viktor shokin's office for having corrupt actor and impeding anti-corruption reforms. number four, there was some bipartisan support for the initiative to get rid of shokin. we have a letter signed by three republican senators and democratic senators in february of 2016 calling on ukraine's then president, tontly needed r. this was not just biden and not even just democrats. >> daniel dale, appreciate it. reaction from jeff and laura. it is common, i guess for, an

attorney to leave out some sort of the argument. doesn't fit their actual argument. >> that would be successful if everyone didn't already have the facts, if you already didn't know what was left out, in particular, this, they're trying to equate what joe biden did with that ukrainian prosecutor and withholding certain aid with what donald trump is accused of doing in withholding aid. the difference is what the motivation was and who it was benefiting. they would hike to believe biden was benefiting himself and self-interested in hoping to help his son hunter biden on the board of burisma. it was that particular prosecutor who was refusing to investigate actions of corruption and actually removing the prosecutor hurt burisma in the end. to try to equate it now and leave out the key detail and try to conflate the two is what they're trying to do to try to shame the bidens, to try to use this to say that he is somehow corrupt, had nefarious intent, can't get over the hurdle of saying why is this different? because one was for national

security and one was for a self-interest reason. >> what pam bondi said fits very well with what joanie ernst said today about, boy, i can't wait to see the iowa caucuses and see how this basically -- >> whether people will vote for -- >> remember, why we're here, this whole thing is about damaging joe biden. that's why the president got involved with this, that's why that misleading argument was made by pam bondi. that's why joanie ernst wants to use this process against joe biden. the entire focus of the ukraine mattered defined broadly was not to fight corruption, not to protect american security, but to hurt president trump's rival in 2020 and whether it is misleading, the senate as pam bondi did or using this process to hurt biden and the iowa

caucuses as joanie ernst mentioned today, it is all the same story. >> i want to go back to dana bash on capitol hill. dana? >> i'm here with senator jeff merkley. a couple of questions, let's start with something mitt romney told my colleague manu raju a short while ago, that he would be open to effectively a witness swap, if republicans want -- if democrats want a witness, say john bolton, then republicans should be able to get a witness too. can you see yourself and your democratic colleagues agreeing to that at all in a matter of who the democratic witness -- the republican witness would be rather? >> philosophically in a trial, both sides going to choose their own witnesses. i'm supportive of the general concept. but the republicans have introduced something completely inappropriate, to try to continue the assault that trump

was taking on the bidens and make that the core of the trial. that's something laid out in that manner i could not support that. >> meaning you would be okay for them in theory to pick a witness, but not if it is hunter or joe biden? >> yes. for example, the core argument is that the president had a motivation that was based on policy. perhaps corruption, perhaps burden sharing with europe. they provided no evidence of that. a witness who is coming in to provide evidence of that would be relevant. but to continue the strategy that the president had of assaulting the bidens in trying to influence the next selection turns this into a circus and entie entirely inappropriate. >> something else percolating, senator james lankford of oklahoma is proposing the idea of instead of hearing from john bolton as a witness, getting the manuscript that is apparently in the white house somewhere, in the nsc and the book publisher

has putting it in a classified setting and allowing senators like you to read it. >> the common law neve triayou access to witnesses. the inability to have a deposition with bolton is a continuation of an effort to prevent full information. the types of question hes that could could be asked of him, that's exactly what the republicans are trying to block. >> that's a no. >> that is a statement that is entirely insufficient as compared to a deposition and testimony. >> i don't need to tell you, you talk about common law and the way our trial is, this is -- impeachment is a political exercise. you make combinations that maybe -- no other impeachments have blocked witnesses and documents in this fashion. this is a new corruption of the responsibility that we have

under the constitution and under this trial and so we have to resist this corruption and say a full and fair trial, that's what the american people understand our role is, and we have to fight for that. >> just broadly before i let you go, you were listening to the president's lawyers, all day yesterday, you'll hear them again this morning. you were telling me before you came on about your reaction to what dershowitz said, alan dershowitz on the notion that john bolton, even what he says is true in this manuscript, it is unimpeachable. >> i thought dershowitz disgrazed himself, he said essentially even if a president commands the power of state to corrupt a future election, by seeking the intervention of a foreign power, that that's not something that impeachment would be appropriate for. it is exactly the type of foreign interference that the founders talked about. it is exactly the type of abuse of power the founders talked about. and when dershowitz went on to

say there has to be an explicit crime and he noted by the way that most scholars disagree with him, he didn't explain why. that's because the conversation among the founders was about using this phrase because of its flexibility for uncertain future circumstances. >> senator, thank you so much for your time. appreciate it. we're going to take a quick break here at cnn. we have a lot more of our coverage of the impeachment trial of donald j. trump. also, more information coming in about potential witnesses, even a witness swap. don't go away. lactaid is 100% real milk, just without the lactose. so you can enjoy it even if you're sensitive. yet some say it isn't real milk. i guess those cows must actually be big dogs. sit! i said sit!

uh, "fifteen minutes could save you 15%ain? or more on car insurance." i think we're gonna swap over to "over seventy-five years of savings and service." what, we're just gonna swap over? yep. pump the breaks on this, swap it over to that. pump the breaks, and, uh, swap over? that's right. instead of all this that i've already-? yeah. what are we gonna do with these? keep it at your desk, and save it for next time. geico. over 75 years of savings and service.

i don't have to worry about that, do i? actually, you do. harmful bacteria lurk just below the gum line, and if you're not taking care of your gums, you're not taking care of your mouth. so now i use this. crest gum detoxify. crest gum detoxify, voted product of the year. it works below the gum line and is clinically proven to neutralize harmful plaque bacteria and help reverse early gum damage. gum detoxify, from crest. gums are good. so is my check up! crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life.

more heart felt condolences over the death of an nba superstar. >> kobe bryant was one of nine people killed when a helicopter crashed on sunday in southern california. owl the victims have been identified. among them, tragically, his 13-year-old daughter gianna. >> the ntsb's investigation now says the pilot had gotten special permission to fly because of extremely low visibility. in the last communication with air traffic control, the pilot said he was climbing to avoid a cloud layer. >> tonight, to honor the victims, the los angeles lakers and clippers game is being postponed as mourners continue to grieve outside the staples center. late night host jimmy kimmel also got emotional, remembering kobe bryant, a frequent guest on his show. >> kobe was a hero in the way superman is a hero. he was so big, it was almost like he was a fictional character. he was a real life superhero with a costume and everything,

walking amongst us. those of us who loved the lakers know it seemed like he always came through, he always showed up to save the day. he wanted to save the day. he had a force of will, he never gave up. as an athlete, he was incredibly gifted, more than almost anyone. talented beyond reasoning, yet he worked harder than anyone, he worked harder than people with much less talent than he had, he took his job and pursuit so seriously. he was dedicated to being as good as possibly as he could be, which is inspiring to anyone who does anything. we loved him because of that. we also love him because he was ours. we watched him grow up here, he came to l.a. when he was a teenager. and unlike almost every other superstar athlete, he never left, in his 20-year career, he only wore two uniforms for the lakers and for the united states olympic team. there were times when it seemed like he would leave, but he

didn't. he stayed until the end. there is no silver lining here. all bad, all sad. he was a bright light and that's how i want to remember him. libe. they get that no two people are alike and customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. almost done. what do you think? i don't see it. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ this round's on me.eat. hey, can you spot me?

come on in. find your place today, with silversneakers. included in most medicare advantage plans. enroll today by calling the number on your screen or visit getsilversneakers.com when youyou spend lessfair, and get way more. so you can bring your vision to life and save in more ways than one. for small prices, you can build big dreams, spend less, get way more. shop everything home at wayfair.com garcy young woman: yeah, thanks mom mother: of course and i love these flowers young woman whispering: hey, did you bring the... the condoms? young man whispering: what's up? young woman whispering: condoms young man whispering: what? young woman whispering: condom father: condoms charlie. she wants to know if you brought any condoms.

young man: yeah i brought some. announcer: eargo, a virtually invisible hearing loss solution with high quality sound and lifetime support. when i needed to jumpstart sales. build attendance for an event. help people find their way. fastsigns designed new directional signage, and got them back on track. get started at fastsigns.com

and got them back on track. here hold this. follow that spud. [ tires screech ] the big idaho potato truck is touring america telling folks about idaho potatoes. and i want it back. what is it with you and that truck?

i'm wolf blitzer live in washington, alongside jake tapper, anderson cooper and dana bash on capitol hill. this is cnn's special coverage of the impeachment trial of president donald j. trump. today is the final day for the president's legal defense team to plead their case against impeachment. it is a try to dissuade republican senators from considering calling for witnesses, even in the wake of the john bolton revelations as reported by the new york times. >> the trump team last night broke out high profile attorney alan dershowitz to make their case right in primetime. he argued that even if john bolton's claims are true, demanding a quid pro quo is well within the president's rights. and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. meantime, politically speaking, it seems iowa republican senator joanie ernst said something that has caused a lot of controversy. take a listen. >> iowa caucuses are this next monday evening.

and i'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the iowa caucus voters, those democratic caucusgoers, will they be supporting vice president biden at this point? >> the former vice president responded with this tweet, and i'm quoting now, iowa caucusgoers take note, joanie ernst just spilled the beans, she and donald trump are scared to death i'll be the nominee. on february 3rd, let's make their day. >> the irony is that republicans use the same kind of strategy in their attempt to derail the hillary clinton campaign, according to then house majority leader kevin mccarthy in 2015. >> everybody thought hillary clinton was unbeatable, right? but we put together a benghazi special committee. a select committee, what are her numbers today? her numbers are dropping, why? because she's untrustable.

but no one would have known any of that had happened had we -- >> i agree. >> let's discuss this. >> go ahead, senator. >> we have to draw a distinction with these two. it is something they did to go after hillary clinton and you can make the case, obviously, successful in some regard. what the republicans -- what joni ernst voiced that she probably in my opinion shouldn't have voiced but did was that a proceeding that the democrats brought on, this is not something republicans decide, we're going to go after joe biden, the democrats brought this impeachment on and had to deal with at least in some respects joe and hunter biden and republicans are simply taking advantage of the moment to counterattack. so i think they're very different, one was sort of a strategy to go after hillary clinton, by the majority. the other is a response to a -- an attack on the president and trying to fend it off.

>> she ruined the moment for the republicans. here they were, feeling really great, that alan dershowitz had given them the excuse they were looking for on impeachment. he said whatever -- >> trumpian moment. >> right. exactly. whatever bolton did, dershowitz said, it is not impeachable. now you hear republican senator after republican senator this morning saying, you know, it may -- his behavior may not have been appropriate or perfect, but it is not impeachable. they had heard that, they were feeling really great, and she goes out there and last night and says, well, it is really just about the politics of this and i hope joe biden loses iowa and maybe lose iowa as a result of this and so if i'm a republican, standing next to her, i'm grabbing her away from the microphone. >> having said all that, what she said in a moment of weakness is not -- doesn't change the overall drift of what happened last night. robert ray and dershowitz did a

job of shoring up any nervous republican. the fact that mitt romney came out today and is talking deal instead of a straight up vote i want john bolton to come is i think emblematic of the fact that this is -- >> alan dershowitz being the savior for the republican party here -- >> is there anyone on this panel who is not interested in seeing if there is some sort of political blowback for joe biden when it comes to the defense? >> she spoke the truth. she spoke the truth. she just should have -- >> exactly, right, exactly. pundits saying it is one thing. displaying the conflict is another. >> iowa votes on monday, first contest, only one, but very important, especially if you're a former vice president, if you underperform, all the questions about this joe biden have what it takes and we don't know the answer to this question. he has stressed this is proof trump fears me.

he tried to turn it to my advantage. if you're a democratic voter, do you buy that or go into it thinking about fair or unfair, the things said about hillary clinton in the 2016 election and think do we want to go through this again, no matter what happens in this witness question, we assume the math, if joe biden is the nominee, you think that donald trump is going to forget about any of this story line? just because we had an impeachment debate about it and some republicans don't like it, so i'll be kawhiet? that's not going to happen. >> last night in the primetime white house legal defense arguments, alan dershowitz, they did give the republicans a lot of cover to go ahead and say, yeah, maybe inappropriate, the phone call, maybe shouldn't have done it but it doesn't rise to the level of removing him from office. >> that was dershowitz, household name to most americans because of his past involvement in high profile cases, i thought it made a pretty compelling case, saying even if everything that has been presented to you

by the democrats and some which hasn't been presented by the democrats is true, it still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. that in many ways is what people thought weeks ago would be the stance from republicans, from this -- from this defense team and so finally, i think, in the closing we'll see what they say today, they probably should have just left why they had the applause from the gop senators. >> i'm curious how the president reacts to this. of course, he hasn't allowed anybody to say anything is inappropriate, the call was perfect. cipollone came out and said it was perfectly appropriate. everything was great. jay sekulow saeid the same thin. clearly, ray was first one to say, i know many of you may have come to the conclusion or may have already concluded the call was less than perfect. he went on to say, okay, that's fine. acknowledging where the senators were. as to biden, the jury is out. i was texting with somebody on the campaign who said, well, we

can say that we're their biggest target because they're afraid of us. how long that will last -- >> how democrat pros cess that, we'll find out. that's why they have elections. to the point there is no question that mr. ray and professor dershowitz changed the trajectory of yesterday. the question is what happens today. >> listen in to chuck schumer. >> i thought there were two leaders of vietnam, win cow key and nguyen cow key. nguyen in vietnamese is pronounced win. thank you for listening in. >> this is the schumer -- >> okay. thank you all for coming. i'm joined by my great colleagues here. now, it seems like every day some new revelation emphasizes our request for relevant witnesses and documents in this trial. and gives it momentum. there has been a steady drip,

drip, drip of information. the truth, leaking out and one explosive article after another. in that sense, this is reminiscent of watergate. emails were released over the christmas break, showing that the delay on military assistance was placed 91 minutes after the president's july 25th call with president zelensky. emails from michael duffey revealed he had, quote, clear direction from the president to continue the hold on military assistance. and yesterday the new york times reported on several stunning chapters from ambassador bolton's book, including the administration by mr. bolton that he was ordered by the president to continue freezing military assistance to ukraine until it was announced the political -- until it announced the political investigations he was seeking. the details from ambassador bolton get to the heart of the

first article of impeachment. the same new york times story places mick mulvaney at the center of this plot. he's a more important witness probably than bolton. and the emails from duffey and blair, the two other witnesses we seek, are even more relevant as this information comes out. so i understand why leader mcconnell and president trump wanted a very short and credibly rushed trial. because the longer it goes on, the more likely that new evidence and more new evidence will come out that further implicates the president. now, just look at the other new york times report last night about ambassador bolton's book. several members of the administration had concerns about the president's dealings with autocrats. particularly xi of china and erdogan of turkey. did the president have financial

interest at stake when he was talking to erdogan or xi and others. maybe his kids had some economic interest at stake. and did it impact our nation's foreign policy with those countries? those questions are not the subject of the president's impeachment trial. but this report should be a warning sign to any republican in the senate. if you vote with the white house, to suppress and cover up evidence, the odds are strong that the truth, the truth will eventually come out. in a few weeks or a few months, to my republican colleagues -- >> we're going to continue to monitor chuck schumer, democratic leader in the senate. he made a pretty startling accusation against the president that according to the john bolton book, the new york times reporting, that the president was nice to the leaders of turkey, china and hungary, potentially according to

schumer, because he had some sort of financial interest or maybe his children had a financial interest. that's a pretty serious allegation that he's making against the president. >> it is completely irrelevant to the facts in front of the senate right now. second of all, it is based on reporting that is based on what somebody who has seen the book has told the reporters, the new york times reporters and i don't mistrust their reporting, it is maggie haberman, mike schmidt, they break a lot of stories. it is not the kind of solid evidence that, you know, you would introduce in a hearing as it were. and not really particularly germane. not bolton talking about something he saw or conversation he participated in, it is bolton and suspicions and concerns he had, which is very different than the initial revelation, which was about a conversation he had with president trump. >> yeah, john king what do you

think? >> we're in they very unpredictable situation. this is secondary, not saying it is not important, but -- >> neither am i. >> the phone conversations with the leaders around the world is not essential to the impeachment question. is that enough to convince senators to extend the impeachment trial and have witnesses? that question is before us. as of today, i think your money is safer staying with mitch mcconnell than bottling this up. it will play out over the next 72 hours or so. the president's team could influence that debate. it raises a question, what if john bolton is not called as a witness. and this book comes out. has impeachment boxed the democrats in, in the sense that republicans have the majority in the senate, chuck schumer can say whatever he wants, can't get a hearing, can't get john bolton in the chair in the senate. if the house democrats come back to any of this, it is t-ball for republicans to say you had your

shot with impeachment, now being g gratuitous. what do you mean you want to call on the attorney general bill barr. this is what nancy pelosi was worried about the at beginning when she was against impeachment, you get boxed into an impeachment process and any other legitimate oversight by the house would then appear to be political and gratuitous. i don't know where we're going. >> don't you think the converse is true, they don't call for witnesses, they vote to not call witnesses, let's say three republican senators do, but not the fourth. and then the trial is over friday. and then the book comes out. what we're getting are descriptions of the book from people who read it, as they tell it to reporters. john bolton, if you ever looked at any of his previous books, is incredibly meticulous. he has -- he takes detailed

notes throughout the day, he would then make a memo of what the day brought, so his book will have lots and lots of detail. don't then republican senators, might they face the opposite question, which is how could you not have called this guy as a witness, i'm reading this book in march and you didn't -- >> i think every one of the senators as they cast this vote is going to have to think what is going to come out in six minutes, six days, and six months from now that is going to maybe cast this vote in a very different light as they -- no question about that. as they cast that vote, a no vote, will they have to answer it? not just john bolton's book. over the weeks and months, more information about all of the episodes, will they be shamed by the vote. >> this blanket defense of what he did, even if what bolton says was true, then it still wasn't impeachable. that's where you imagine a lot of the senators, particularly

the ones set to vote against these witnesses, which most of them will, obviously, so, yeah, that's why dershowitz was so helpful. >> number one, this isn't going to be the first book that is an explosive book about how donald trump operates in the white house. >> the first one written by somebody who was a top adviser. >> yeah, but -- >> all i'm saying is everyone on the republican side has discounted the way the president operates as something that we knew going in, we have seen multiple reports of how he operates, not a secret to anybody. i think all republicans care about, all i would care about as a republican senator is the point that nia made, on this subject matter, what he said is irreleva irrelevant. even if it is true, it the not impeachable. everything else is a political issue. we have an election coming up. >> so dershowitz says and ray says it is not impeachable. it is not surprising either.

you have a story, but it is relevant in the nation that this story and bolton's perception of the president and his relationships with authoritarian figures and telling them on the sly, well, i'm going to help you out, that is trubling, but not surprising anymore to the american public. >> the defense team set to kick off the final day of the opening arguments. cnn learned it will not last more than a couple of hours. we'll discuss the strategy. also, senator tim kaine hasn't weighed in on the impeachment since the trial started until now. he joins us live. woman: what does the word "partner" really mean? someone i can trust. (impact, click) who is with me for the long-term. who understands i'm dealing with lives, not only livelihoods. that in order to help people, i need more than products,

i need quality support and insights. can i find someone who partners with me to achieve people's long-term success? with capital group, i can. talk to your advisor or consultant for investment risks and information. talk to your advisor or consultant cake in the conference room! showing 'em you're ready... to be your own boss. that's the beauty of your smile. crest's three dimensional whitening... ...removes stains,... ...whitens in-between teeth... ...and protects from future stains. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life.

cnn learned the president's attorneys could wrap up their arguments early today. that means they would be leaving valuable time on the table. john harwood joins us from the white house. what are you hearing, john, about what to expect today? >> what we're hearing is that the white house lawyers are not going to take all the time available to them because they don't think they need to. this is a situation as the john bolton exercise has shown where time is not their friend. they're hoping to get this trial and these arguments done as quickly as possible, hopefully with no witnesses. the defense has been all over the place. house managers bad, biden bad, trump, no evidence that trump did it, when bolton blew that up and said, well, even if he did it, alan dershowitz said last night, it is not impeachable. what they're trying to do with that is simply give gop senators

something to hang on to do justify a vote against witnesses and vote to acquit. we're starting to hear that today from republican senators who say we wouldn't learn anything from john bolton anyway. this is an acknowledgement of the point that our colleague brit hume made on fox a couple of weeks ago. they already believe republican senators already believe that trump did what he's accused of doing. they don't think it is worth impeaching him over. try it put your cards on the table and get your vote as quickly as possible and see if you can hold 50 out of 53 against witnesses and move on to the acquittal vote. >> john harwood, thank you very much. alan dershowitz tackled the bolton issue with the argument for expansive presidential power. listen. >> nothing in the bolton revelations even if true would rise to the level of an abuse of

power or an impeachable offense. >> back now with our legal team. jeff, did you -- what did you think overall of dershowitz's argument? >> i thought it was very dense. i thought it was hard to follow, frankly. but that argument is a very powerful one and a very helpful one to the president. roger wicker already said today, well, based on what professor dershowitz said, we don't need to hear from bolton or any witnesses because it is irrell rant. the charge itself, this is why dershowitz's argument is helpful, accept it all as true, accept trump did exactly what the democrats said he did, it is still not impeachable. i think that argument is wrong as a matter of law, but, it is an argument you can have. >> not impeachable because of obstruction of congress and abuse of power are not impeachable offenses. >> exactly. his argument is that abuse of

power and obstruction of congress are not high crimes and misdemeanors as he understands the constitution to be written. if you believe that, you don't need witnesses. >> another lawyer argues that abuse of power is an impeachable offense. so you had yesterday one of trump's lawyers saying you can't impeach people for abuse of power and you have robert ray who said history matters, and explaining there was a bipartisan coalition and bipartisan consensus that the president had abused powers. republicansenators, the issue is the president's misuse of our foreign policy for personal gain on the same level of abuse of power as richard nixon's, which republicans and democrats alike agreed was reasons for impeachment. >> dershowitz's argument was far

more nuanced in my take. it was twofold. he was saying a quip in and of itself is not an impeachable offense because we all the time look at withholding aid or trying to make bargains with foreign nation and don't look at that as an abuse of power. the question for him was whether a quid pro quo was transformative in some way to be an abuse of power. it would not be able to deter conduct in the future unless it was closurely had elements that associated with it to say here are the qualities we find abhorrent, here is what you're doing if it is abuse of power. short of the clear elements, you cannot find abuse of power that is not going to give this over to where congress is empowered to say the president serves at your pleasure. that's his overall argument. i don't think it is sound. on the quid pro quo, no one is asking for a psychoanalysis of president trump in respect to

his family relationships. it is why he wanted a quid pro quo. it is his motivation holding all the water here, because of a personal interest. in terms of abuse of power, it is not so generalized as he's making it out to be. they spent 24 hours as we all know finding all of the different elements, the a, b, cs, abuse of power, betrayal of national security and interest, corruption of the election and the public office. all of those things had corresponding evidentiary arguments. he glossed over it to say so what? >> it is not necessarily sufficient. i think -- i think dershowitz was making that point. it is only the most serious abuses of power. he's walked back the initial contention it must be a crime, that's the white house' position in those briefs.

he walked it back saying it has to be crime-like or criminal type, i think there is probably general consensus on. i agree with that in as much as if has to be incredibly serious and injury -- >> you made the argument that if the president is parking in a handicap space. >> abuse of power, not impeachable. what dershowitz is doing is the rhetoric by focusing on the heading and not the details. >> will senators see john bolton's manuscript in a classified setting? we await the president's defense team. ♪ fight both fast tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪ ♪ tum tum tum tums tums chewy bites with gas relief

hurricanes. tornadoes. donald trump is making it worse. trump:"all of this with the global warming. a lot of it's a hoax." vo: mike bloomberg knows the science and understands the challenge, he's led an effort that has shut down half the nation's dirty polluting coal plants so far. as president, a plan for 80% clean energy by 2028 - cutting carbon emissions and creating millions of clean energy jobs. mike will get it done. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. you will see at vgreat and look great.ee "guaranteed" we say that too! you've gotta use these because we don't mean it. buy any pair at regular price, get one free. really! visionworks. see the difference.

be stronger... with nicorette coated ice mint. layered with flavor. it's the first and only coated nicotine lozenge. for an amazing taste... ...that outlasts your craving. nicorette ice mint.

welcome back to cnn's special coverage of the impeachment trial of president donald j. trump. i'm dana bash on capitol hill. i'm joined now by democratic senator tim kaine of virginia. thank you so much for joining

me. just a couple of quick things bubbling in these hallways as we have been talking this morning. first of all, mitt romney told my colleague manu raju he would be -- he thinks it would be fair if there are witnesses to have a republican called witness and a democratic witness. what is your response to that? >> i don't disagree with that. dana, we have a process, file a motion for a witness, and with 51 gets the witness. it shouldn't be a deal like one for one. if you want a witness, the republicans could file motions for witnesses last week. i hope they will say we need witnesses and documents in a trial. every trial has them. they should file who they want and we file who we want and then hopefully we'll get witnesses and documents. >> the way that it works is there are -- you were saying, there are votes. you have to vote on presumably every witness. >> absolutely. >> unless there is a package deal what romney is saying,

democrats won't go for -- >> i don't think so. if they think witnesses are necessary, i agree with them. that's positive. you think witnesses will make this a fair trial, great. you put down the witnesses you want, we'll put the ones in we want, we'll have a vote and there rules. the parties can object if either irrelevant are hear say stuff is not admissible, chief justice can review the transcript and strike out the portions that shouldn't be made available to the senators and then we get the depositions and hopefully live testimony within bounds, but they always had the ability to seek witnesses and maybe they're finally realizing if this was a trial in traffic court, we would have witnesses or documents and impeachment of a president should be conducted not at a lower standard but a higher standard. >> under the scenario you pointed out, if the republicans want hunter biden, they have the votes in theory. they have 53 republican senators, they need 51. >> they can decide who they think is fair. they have the votes. all they need is 51 and they get the witness.

it is subject to rules about relevancy. all that gets worked out as they're being deposed and the material presented to the senators is only the material probative on the impeachment case. >> john bolton, senator lankford of oklahoma has an idea to take the manuscript that the publisher clearly has, they have given it to the nsc, the new york times has seen it as well, to bring it to the senators, have the senators be able to read john bolton's book manuscript in a classified setting, lindsey graham signed on to that too. what is your reply ? >> necessary, not sufficient. manuscript isn't written under oath. i want somebody under oath. as white house counsel argued two days in a row, the greatest engine for the discovery of truth is cross examination. would i like to read the manuscript, i sure would.

it would prepare me to have better questions for the witness, but the witness needs to appear and to be under oath. >> what about the white house argument, which they're making, i can tell you, as we speak, among other arguments, in the hopes of stopping this witness train from leaving the station, saying this is just going to take so long, it is going to end up in court, and this whole process will be protracted. >> the oath we took said we will do impartial justice. didn't say we'll do expedited justice, didn't say we'll do drive by or drive through justice, said we'll do impartial justice. you know my background, i tried cases for 17 years, cases from traffic court to the u.s. supreme court, never had a case where there weren't witnesses and documents. you have to have those to do impartial justice. when i see the white house counsel making really passionate arguments on the floor and there is good lawyers, but they're telling us, of course you can't

look at the koumt documents or witnesses, is that because you're confident of the case you're telling me things that i know when i look at the witnesses and documents they'll be undermined? i think they're making a case but don't want us to see the real evidence. the evidence would undermine their case? >> the big picture, the impeachment, the conviction, potentially, though it is far fetched right now, given the numbers of a president. what alan dershowitz said last night was that if -- even if everything that bolton said is true, he had a conversation with the president about this quid pro quo, that's not impeachable. >> so, first, i don't want anybody, no matter where they teach law school to tell me what is relevant to my determination. i'm a u.s. senator, i'm the one who gets to -- >> he was making an argument, appropriate way, but don't tell me what i should think is relevant. i'm the senator. you run for the senate if you

want to make that determination. don't tell me what i think is relevant. he was raising a point that is a good point. i think this is the point that both sides have to grapple with. impeachment is about three things. what are the facts, most of the facts are agreed to or not challenged. that was probably the real point that dershowitz was making, he lost me when he says, you don't need to look at the evidence. dole tell me that. the point he was making is you have to make sure that it is not a low crime or misdemeanor, but high crime and misdemeanor because removal is serious. i guess that. that's why we have to be impartial jurors. >> thank you for your time. i appreciate it. we're going to take a quick break. a lot more of our coverage coming up including an interview with senator lankford about his proposal that i just talked to

senator kaine about for the senators to read the bolton manuscript. stay with us. no matter how much you clean, does your house still smell stuffy? that's because your home is filled with soft surfaces that trap odors and release them back into the room. so try febreze fabric refresher. febreze finds odors trapped in fabrics and cleans them away as it dries. use febreze every time you tidy up, to keep your whole house smelling fresh air clean. fabric refresher even works for clothes you want to wear another day. make febreze part of your clean routine for full home freshness. la la la la la garcy young woman: yeah, thanks mom mother: of course and i love these flowers young woman whispering: hey, did you bring the... the condoms? young man whispering: what's up? young woman whispering: condoms young man whispering: what? young woman whispering: condom father: condoms charlie. she wants to know if you brought any condoms. young man: yeah i brought some. announcer: eargo, a virtually invisible hearing loss

solution with high quality sound and lifetime support. rowithout the commission fees and account minimums. so, you can start investing wherever you are - even on the bus. download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood.

listerine® cleans virtually 100%. helping to prevent gum disease and bad breath. never settle for 25%. always go for 100. bring out the bold™ basketball fans around the world are still mourning the

loss of lakers legend kobe bryant. >> investigators are still trying to determine the cause of the helicopter crash that killed him and eight other people, including his young daughter. bryant was beloved for his skill and love of the game. today, the lakers and clippers agreed to postpone their scheduled game tonight to allow fans, players, to grieve. >> and for the first time we are now hearing from a man who along with bryant formed one of the nba's most iconic duos, shaquille o'neal. he and bryant won three consecutive nba championships together in l.a. disagreements on and off the court were well documented. but now heart broken over the news of his former teammate's death, shaq opened up about their relationship. >> i'm not doing well. i'm sick. i'm just getting over the death of my sister. and i haven't been sleeping after aisha's death because it is just, you know, not thinking

about just the good times, but thinking about the times when i could have did something or i could have said something or could have did something different or could have loved her more or could have showed her more support. and the same thing hit when i found out this news, you know, i figured somebody was playing around. didn't want to believe it. and then everybody is calling me. is that true? is it true? so now i'm saying, please don't be true. please don't be true, please don't be true. i'm watching and you get the confirmation and sad enough, you hear his daughter is with him. i didn't do anything. i haven't eaten. i haven't slept. i'm looking at all the tapes, but i'm sick right now. and i know some idiot is going to bring up the relationship

with me and kobe had, our relationship was that of brothers. when i saw kobe and his daughters, loved them. he saw my kids, loved them. look at my kids, tweet, instagram, he talked to shareef yesterday morning. >> he was checking in on your son, not an hour before his death. >> so all the stuff that is documented between us, never a dislike, just, listen, this is what brothers do. and, you know, the only thing that is sad to me is i'm not going to be there, he's not going to be here when he walked into the hall of fame. frequent heartburn? not anymore.

the prilosec otc two-week challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com.

former national security adviser john bolton's possible testimony is the talk on capitol hill, especially since bolton wrote a new memoir that the president told him the hold on ukraine would be released if they started an investigation on joe explain why would the president giving personal favors to foreign nations be a big deal if it had benefits for u.s. policy or for any reason? >> first, anderson, what struck

me about this, it appeared to be very kin with the pattern thto president has fallen in deference to autocrats in general. if there were, for example, commercial or business interests in either case, turkey or china, well, that's, again, it fits this general pattern of corruption. and what the other thing that was interesting to me about it, anderson, was that he spoke to the attorney general about it, not necessarily, or at least what's been revealed so far, he spoke to the attorney general, not the secretary of state. so -- >> why is that significant to you? >> well, i guess what it implied to me is that bolton apparently thought that there was -- apparently thought there was perhaps a criminal concern here as opposed to a policy one.

it seemed to me if he were just concerned about it from a policy standpoint, he would have talked to the secretary of state rather than the attorney general. >> one of the president's attorneys made the case that he didn't do anything different from president obama's time in office. i just want to play what they said. >> president obama solicited interference of a foreign government, russia, in the 2012 united states presidential election. he did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of russia to give him space, quote, unquote, on missile defense that would benefit his reelection and influence the 2012 united states presidential election to his advantage. >> i wanted to give you a chance to respond to what you think about that argument. >> it strikes me as -- when i first heard about it, i didn't know what he was talking about. i wondered whether this was a

reference to the on-mic exchange between president obama and medvedev, who i think then -- i guess he was the president then in 2012. >> that's right. >> to me that's a real stretch to assert or allege that this somehow was soliciting russian involvement in our election. i just don't get that connection. it's not -- it's not logical to me. >> james clapper, always good talking to you. appreciate it. >> thank you, anderson. as the republicans wait to start their last day, it could start a nasty court battle. stand by. as getting geico

to help with homeowners insurance. what? switching and saving was really easy! i love you! what? sweetie! hands off the glass. ugh!! call geico and see how easy saving on homeowners and condo insurance can be. i love her! asand achieved new york city'sed cacleanest air quality in more than 50 years. as a leader in the fight against climate change, he helped shut down over half of the nation's coal plants, then led one of the biggest pollution reduction efforts in history. as president, he intends to reduce emissions by fifty percent within ten years. because if we want to stop climate change, we need to make a change. this is a fight-we can't afford to lose. i'm mike bloomberg and i approve this message. our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-seven vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy.

athat will have you seeingf with adouble.n iphone 11 all on t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal. get twice the deal, with 2 lines of unlimited for $90 and 2 iphone 11s on us. only at t-mobile. ♪ new fixodent ultra dual power provides you with an unbeatable hold and strong seal against food infiltrations. fixodent. and forget it. >> man: what's my my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me. >> tech: hi, i'm adrian. >> man: thanks for coming. ...with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

woi felt completely helpless.hed online. my entire career and business were in jeopardy. i called reputation defender. vo: take control of your online reputation. get your free reputation report card at reputationdefender.com. find out your online reputation today and let the experts help you repair it. woman: they were able to restore my good name. vo: visit reputationdefender.com or call 1-877-866-8555.

i'm wolf blitzer live in washington alongside jake tapper, anderson cooper and dana bash. she's up on capitol hill. this is cnn's special coverage of the impeachment trial of president donald j. trump. today the defense team wraps up their presentations before the senate. the trump team sarg ewiis argui the president's actions in this case don't meet the standard of

high crimes and misdemeanors. >> the big question now is whether four republican senators will join the democratic senators in calling for additional witnesses, including, and perhaps especially, president trump's former national security adviser, john bolton. >> i'd like to see john bolton. what i've not heard from any of my republican colleagues is what's the reason not to see john bolton and how stupid are we all going to look if his book comes out with extraordinarily relevant information 60 days from now and this proceeding is over? that just makes no sense. >> i don't think the testimony of ambassador bolton would be helpful because i basically think, in agreement with the very scholarly approach that mr. dershowitz gave that there is no article there that is grounds for impeachment or removal.

>> leet gt's get straight to da bash on capitol hill with senator langford, republican from oklahoma, who has a new proposal on how he thinks the senate should handle this bolton manuscript. dana? >> thank you, senator, for joining me. tell me about your proposal on specifically dealing with the bolton manuscript? >> the "new york times" doesn't know the bolt on manuscript. someone who has read it told the "new york times" about it and we're getting bits and pieces. there are things brought up by the counsel, and facts have come to bear those out. what we don't know is about the manuscript and what the details are. it's going through the classified process to take out anything that is classified and needs to be taken out. i would recommend the white house turn it over, put it through one of the skiffs, and

we can read all of it and see for ourselves if there is anything significant there. >> and the white house specif, y specifically the dnc, which is where it lives, they're open to that? >> i don't know. we need to resolve in the next couple days if we need witnesses for that. we can't say six weeks from now we need to be able to see it. we need to see it now. >> is your vision to simply see the manuscript and that would be in lieu of john bolton testifying? >> no, this would be to see if we need john bolton to testify. we have a couple days still of questions. i'm just saying this needs to be part of our information so we can make that decision about witnesses. >> it's interesting, because i've talked to several democrats who have said no dice, if that's where you were going with this. only read it and that would be

sufficient, because they argue as part of your trial process they need to be able to ask questions, he needs to be deposed and also a manuscript isn't under oath. >> there is no reasonable statement that's been brought up by the house managers at this point to say john bolton is really required because, other than statements that they have where he said, talk to the lawyers. it's a reasonable thing for him to say when you have rudy giuliani who is a private attorney talking to someone official. john bolton has been around government long enough to know we have to keep those two things separate. this statement that's out there from the "new york times" is something we need to take a look at and see if it's even accurate. >> so what you're presenting is a very reasonable proposal. >> right. >> put your political hat on and i'm going to try to inject a little truth serum. are you hoping the republicans talking about wanting to hear from john bolton will be

satisfied and it won't need to happen? >> this at least allows people to reach a decision based on facts, that they can actually read the manuscript, rather than someone who read it that reported to someone who made a story and try to make a decision on that. that's no way to make a decision. >> senator, i appreciate it. jake, back to you. >> we'll see the president any minute now in a joint news conference with benjamin netanyahu. he is expected to unveil a long-a wait long-awaited pea d long-awaited proposal. robert costa is at this event. kaitlan collins is also at the white house, jim, let's start with you. the president is sending out a

warning to senators? >> reporter: that's right, saying at this point the white house is kind of painting a doomsday scenario if witnesses like john bolton are called to testify in this senate trial of the president. this one source told me a short while ago that the white house is telling senators essentially that calling john bolton could trigger a nasty court battle that could last for months. democrats are pushing back on that, they've been pushing back on that kind of talk saying this calling of witnesses could be expedited by the courts. it is uncharted territory, so we don't really know. i will tell you talking to a source close to the president's legal team early this morning, they are saying at this point, if they call witnesses, we're prepared to deal with witnesses, but at this point a source close to the president's legal team says at this juncture, they are reasonably confident that witnesses will not be called to testify, and they're going so far as saying -- and i think this is how the conventional wisdom is unfolding here in

washington, saying they feel confident the president will be acquitted at the end of this week. they see things going smoothly for the legal team at this point. there has been a lot of talk about john bolton's book over the last 24 hours. the source close to the president's legal team says the white house counsel's office did not know about the contents of that book, that the president's outside attorneys did not know about the contents of that book, essentially saying, how could they know about the contents of that book, they weren't in possession of the manuscript. but they do feel as though they dealt with the bolton revelations yesterday, even though they only touched on it a couple times. that was their plan, they wanted to stick to the game plan and they didn't want to interrupt that strategy. that being said, they're not ruling out that they'll address this issue of john bolton when they make their closing arguments this afternoon. they are very confident inside

the president's legal team. they feel yesterday and saturday went very well with the president. he said he's pleased with how things are going right now, and therefore they hope to see an acquittal with no witnesses by the end of this week. >> kaitlan, what are you hearing from the president's defense team? >> reporter: what's interesting is how things have shifted in the last 24 hours. when this bolton story broke sunday night, the president's defense team was sent scrambling. they were bombarded by republican senators who wanted to know what they knew. they met at the white house to try to triage the situation and decide how they were going to deal with it yesterday, which they thought would be their last day of argument. you saw a lot of attorneys not touch on it until alan dershowitz got up. he was the second to last attorney to speak before pat cipollone closed things out. he really made the argument to try to ensure those republican senators who were so furious over what they learned, saying,

even if what bolton wrote in that manuscript was true, he didn't think it was worthy of impeaching the president. that was something those senators felt they could hang their hat on. on sunday night when they were being bombarded by these calls by angry republicans, they were worried they could lose close to a dozen of them on this vote on whether they would have witnesses. now dershowitz spoke, republicans really liked his performance. they feel a little better, but they are not by any means in the clear on these witnesses. >> kaitlan, i know john kelly is also speaking out about these bolton remarks. >> this is pretty stunning. i think this is the first time we've heard from john kelly weighing in on this. he was at an event last night and the sarasota herald tribune got his comments. he said, if john bolton said that in the book, i believe john bolton. he said any time he was in the

room with john bolton, he gave the president the unvarnished truth. he's a good guy, and he said some of the conversations to me seemed inappropriate, but i wasn't there. he believes the people who were there should come forward and say what they have to say. the senate gets the full story, which is not the position of the white house. >> thank you, kaitlan collins. we're waiting for the president to speak, but until he does, we can go to this news. when asked about the claims the president told bolton he would not release aid until there was a biden investigation, or at least the announcement of one, giuliani told cnn, quote, i am convinced that is not true. giuliani went on to say, quote, i feel bad that john -- he is a friend for ten years -- stabbed me in the back. here's the president. let's listen. >> we need to take a step toward peace.

young people across the middle east are ready for a more hopeful future, and governments throughout the region are realizing that terrorism and islamic extremism are everyone's common enemy. yesterday i had the pleasure of meeting with both the prime minister of israel and a man that's working very hard to become the primary minister in the longest-running election of all time, benny gantz, of the blue and white party, and both leaders join me to express their support for this effort, proving that the state of israel looking for peace and that peace transcends politics by any measure, unmeasurable, that's what they want. on my first trip overseas as president, i visited the holy land of israel.

if i was deeply moved and amazed by what this small country had achieved through overwhelming odds and threats. it has become a thriving center of democracy, innovation, culture and commerce. israel is a light unto the world. the hearts and history of our people are woven together. the land of israel is an ancient home, a sacred place of worship and a solemn promise to the jewish people that we will never again repeat history's darkest hour. during my trip to israel, i also met with palestinian president

ab ar abas in afghanistan. they deserve a far better life. they deserve the chance to reach their potential. palestinians are in poverty and violence, exploited by those seeking to use them as pawns to advance terrorism and extremism. i returned from my visit determined to find a constructive path, and it's got to be a very powerful path forward in the israeli-palestinian conflict. to further this effort, i also met with president abas at the white house. forging peace between israelis and palestinians may be the most difficult challenge of all. all prior administrations from president lyndon johnson have tried and bitterly failed. but i was not elected to do small things or shy away from

big problems. [ applause ] >> it's been a long and very arduous process to arrive at this moment. on sunday i delivered to prime minister netanyahu my vision for peace, prosperity and a brighter future for the israelis and palestinians. this vision for peace is fundamentally different from past proposals. in the past, even the most well-intentioned plans were light on factual details and heavy on factual frameworks. by contrast, our plan is 80 pages and is the most detailed proposal ever put forward by far. as i've seen throughout my long career as a dealmaker, complex problems require nuanced,

fact-based remedies. that is why our proposal finds precise technical solutions to make israelis, palestinians and the region safer and much more prosperous. my vision presents a win-win opportunity for both sides, a realistic two-state solution that revolvsolves the risk of palestinian statehood into security. netanyahu informed me he is willing to form the basis of direct negotiations, and i would say the general also endorsed, and very strongly, with the palestinians a historic breakthrough. and likewise, we have really a situation having to do with a race that is taking place right

now. it will end and we have the support -- and it's very important to say this -- of both parties and almost all people in israel. they want peace and they want peace badly. [ applause ] >> this is the first time israel has authorized the release of a conceptual map illustrating the territorial compromises it's willing to make for the cause of peace, and they've gone a long way. this is an unprecedented and highly significant development. mr. prime minister, thank you for having the courage to take this bold step forward. [ applause ] >> all right, we're going to continue to monitor this event

and bring you news when it happens. let's talk about this, wolf blitzer. we do not know yet the details about this proposal. we know that the palestinians have not really been included in any of the negotiations. obviously, we all hope for peace in the middle east. we all hope that any proposal is successful. what do you make of this? >> i thought it was significant that the president said in his proposal he would like to see a two-state solution. that means israel, obviously, but a new state of palestine, a formal state of palestine. now, he says the israeli government prime minister netanyahu is deeply troubled right now. he's just been formally indicted back in israel, but he has supported this peace plan that his son-in-law jared kushner has worked out. he said it's a giant step toward peace. he hopes the palestinians will accept it. clearly this is opening the potential for negotiation, but susan glasser is here.

let me get her reaction. you've covered this story for a long time. i think it's significant he is calling for a two-state solution which many of the hardliners in israel totally oppose. they want one state and one state only, being israel. >> it is a powerful visual to see that this is a peace plan rolled out with only one side involved. not only are the palestinians not talking with the president, nor did they have input with this plan, but if the president of the united states is deciding to put his finger on the scale and unveiling it with only one party present, the message sent is this is a proposal sent by israel and not the palestinians. jordan is what's directly impacted by this. we'll have to see what the jordanians have to say.

there are reports there will be an explicit map with proposed lines from the united states. that would represent a different approach than what the united states has taken before. trump said there will be a -- not a framework for talks but an actual proposal. again, politics here is the obvious backup. let's just say, as a long-time observer of this, can we just take a moment to say, wow, you have the president of the united states in the middle of his own trial. that's what will be remembered about this if it doesn't lead to progress one way or another. >> the president of the united states trying to help benjamin netanyahu in what he rightly called the longest election in history. >> let's talk about impeachment

of president trump because we just got these comments from rudy giuliani in which he is basically accusing john bolton, the former national security adviser, of lying. he said, i don't think he's telling the truth. we have one. nothing in exchange. instead he said things different to people inside the white house had he the most problem with, like rick santorum. trump didn't really expect john bolton, but giuliani did, and that's why he said, i recommend him for the job. >> many. >> it goes back to the things

that are on both sides of the issue. people say the president is so chaotic, he doesn't mean half the things he says. it might be fitting he says these things to john bolton. two points. number one, they didn't do it. ultimately the money was released and the relationship with ukraine has been very, v y verily. republicans don't care. i think senator lang f. the steam is out of the kettle here, there's like no smoking gun to be talked about. >> the last thing they need is rudy giuliani going to the floor of the senate and described him

as a bit player, as a nobody, that the democrats are trying to -- >> shiny object. >> now rudy giuliani is once again raising his hand to prove he's in the middle of all this, because he was in the middle of all this. but to senator santorum's point, what senator langford is doing, he's going to try thod in little steps. what do i have to keep it and read a book. rudy giuliani speaking out does not help that cause. >> why keep that secret? there is nothing we read about saying anything john bolton has written is classified or should be kept a secret at all. why should the senators read this privately and then be able to decide, okay, well, maybe we need to call them or we don't need to cally -- call.

>> and let's go to john kelly who says he thinks bolton is a man of honor and he would take his word for it. >> who do you believe, giuliani or donald trump? donald trump, 13,000 or so misleading statements as chronicled in the "washington post." rudy giuliani, who used to be known as america's mayor and who he may taken a beautiful. like you said, i think a lot of republicans would size with him

over donald trump's word in rudy giuliani. up next many. the president praised secretary of state mike pompeo moments ago for berating an npr reporter. rating an npr reporter. e rating an npr reporter. rating an npr reporter. ty. ♪ my bladder leak underwear.orried someone might see so, i switched. to always discreet boutique. its shape-hugging threads smooth out the back. so it fits better than depend. and no one notices. always discreet. and this is cc+ cream. it gives you your skin but better. it's your full coverage foundation, spf 50 plus anti aging serum. discover the #1 cc cream in america.

discover the #1 when i get my teeth cleaned, my hsomething like this. she cleans with something like this. it's got a round head. and it's got power. go pro with oral-b. power one on for oral-b's best clean ever. inspired by dentists.

...oral-b's round brush head surrounds each tooth... ...to remove more plaque along the gum line... for cleaner teeth and healthier gums. i'll only use the one that's round. oral-b. brush like a pro. we just reported that senators are being told by the white house that if you call witnesses in the impeachment trial, they should expect, quote, a nasty court battle. i'll talk about it with our legal panel. lauren, how long a court battle could this be whether or not witnesses would come forward? >> certainly longer than mitch mcconnell would like it to be to promote this whole thing, so they want them to come to court

to say, can this improve things if this person is testifying? can you please give us a court order and a decisive factor whether they can or can't? this is a novel approach to doing so not trying to figure out privilege but to say this person cannot be expected to testify on question after question. the last we heard from trump in davos, his comment was, i don't want him to testify because he left on bad terms, and you never want somebody who left on bad terms to testify. that's not going to bode well if the court looks for the reason why and not a protective reason. >> the white house has asserted complete immunity, so that's one issue, meaning they don't even have to show up and testify. the second issue is the assertion of privilege, meaning even if they show up and testify, there are a whole bunch

of subject matters they won't be able to answer questions on. it will be this two-step processment positiproces process. potentially one is making agreements with the senate. going to court would be tough because what the white house would be doing is going to court and saying, judge, we're in the middle of an impeachment trial. there is a deposition that willen scheduled or already has been scheduled. stop the presses. courts, you tell congress to stop an impeachment. at least on a federal level, that hasn't happened before, and i think a judge is going to be reluctant to do that. but the other angle is the court saying, well, you've now brought me this case. i want to take a look at it. i want to see briefs and arguments. senate, would you be willing to hold off? i think that would put some pressure on the senate to give the courts time to evaluate it. >> and the senate would have to wait until the courts decided, wouldn't